Is APS totally dead?

[Photo Engineer]

A few points are missed here......

I have made 16x20 and 20x24 prints from 35mm color negatives. Since the APS film is the same as 35mm but just a bit smaller, then by extrapolation we can make about 11x14 and 16x20 prints from APS with the same quality. The film is not grainier, it is smaller. And on the negative itself, a panoramic image still occupies the same frame size.

As for film formats, I do not deny that Kodak introduced a host of film formats. But, some formats came from other companies and thus the format wars began. So, it was not a matter of Kodak doing it by themselves. Also, as Kodak began to dominate the market, the size wars stabilized on just a few dominant formats.

As for producing some of the formats today, this would take a lot of equipment that just does not exist. In addition, at least 126 required an extra step in preparation in which the entire strip of film was flashed to form frames around the sites where the image was to be placed on exposure. In other words, a 125 film strip was designed to have a constant exposure level (at least as much as possible) to give higher quality and more uniform processing by having the developer remain in better balance.

All of these smaller formats were made possible by the C41 process and the finer grained films. IMHO, I agree with everyone that 110 and Disc films failed in both grain and sharpness, but our children loved those cameras and carried them everywhere. They took a lot of photos, and they told us that their friends loved them. So, acceptance depends on market. I hated them personally.

PE

 

[Diapositivo]

I have made 16x20 and 20x24 prints from 35mm color negatives. Since the APS film is the same as 35mm but just a bit smaller, then by extrapolation we can make about 11x14 and 16x20 prints from APS with the same quality.

Depends on what you mean for "just a bit smaller".

135 format is, roughly, 24 x 36 mm = 864 sqmm.

The "full frame" of the APS format, APS-H, is 30.2 x 16.7 mm = 504 sqmm.

So the full frame (markedly rectangular) gives a surface which is 42% less than 135.

What people would normally use and experience is the classic format, APS-C. That's 25.1 x 16.7 mm = 419 sqmm. That gives a surface which is 51% less than 135.

Most people using P&S wouldn't print big in any case so the marketing choice for APS and P&S made sense. But P&S are just a segment of the market.
When enlarging a bit more seriously half the surface or twice the surface matters!

No wonder APS did not find any market beyond colour negative. B&W and slide film, which are used by advanced amateurs and pros, people who make enlargements, made no sense on APS. That, in turn, condemned the format as a "snapper" format and I think would have failed to supplant 135 (as it was probably hoped by the proponents) even without the advent of digital.

 

[Photo Engineer]

And this area is why I compared a 35mm 16x20 with an APS 11x14 which is about 50% difference in area!

PE

 

[StoneNYC]

Ok this isn't a great example since there are a lot of variables unaccounted for, BUT

PE you have to remember the pano shots were cut outs of the top and bottom which means the surface area was VERY small, smaller than 110 and perhaps disk too.

But they would enlarge them to for the height of 4inches in a standard print... See...

If you look at the detail, the non cropped image of the tree is fairly clear

The stretched out panos look blurry/out of focus and grainy...

This is because the cameras made had crappy lenses, and crappy lens+less surface area of film=crappy photo...

I have better images off of a 110 roll taken with one of those "spy" cameras you got from an arcade gallery with 100 tickets!

So APS was bad not only in ultimate surface area, but if you blow up (pano) an area of film that isn't pin sharp to begin with because its taken with an elf camera, you get blurry pictures, I don't care what the data on the specs of the film are and that you can "Technically" blow it up to 11x17, in reality that's untrue because the stats are based on perfect DO glass lenses in a test lab, not realistic ones sold to consumers.

The real test is how your final product actually looks in the real world...

Also I have fond memories of 110, they WERE easy to take with you even without a purse but they were also cheap, Advantix was not.

I don't quite follow the 126 description, I'm not understating about the frame "flash" thing. How does that affect affect development?

Also sorry if this sounds angry, it's not, I just haven't had my coffee yet

I still respect and admire you PE for your knowledge and clear thought processes, I just agree with diopositivo this time


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Diapositivo]

I still respect and admire you PE for your knowledge and clear thought processes, I just agree with diopositivo this time

This can happen in the best families, don't worry

 

[Photo Engineer]

Hey guys, I'm not upset.

The thing is Stone, that I shot all of my APS using a Nikon Pronea which can use regular Nikon lenses and so I took the same lens and used it on my 2020 and on the Pronea and compared images that way. I agree that many APS cameras had bad lenses. Today many P&S cameras do too and they give a given film a bad name.

No worries here.

PE

 

[StoneNYC]

Hey guys, I'm not upset.

The thing is Stone, that I shot all of my APS using a Nikon Pronea which can use regular Nikon lenses and so I took the same lens and used it on my 2020 and on the Pronea and compared images that way. I agree that many APS cameras had bad lenses. Today many P&S cameras do too and they give a given film a bad name.

No worries here.

PE

Very fair.

I just went out and shot a roll of the Kodak Advantix just to prove myself wrong and realize you're right haha.

I'm planning to crop after so I'm not concerned either the magnetic data, but does anyone have a reel to process this in a JOBO/Patterson at home?

And how can I scan it? My scanner doesn't have APS size holder... Haha




~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kevs]

<snip>
No wonder APS did not find any market beyond colour negative. B&W and slide film, which are used by advanced amateurs and pros, people who make enlargements, made no sense on APS. That, in turn, condemned the format as a "snapper" format and I think would have failed to supplant 135 (as it was probably hoped by the proponents) even without the advent of digital.

When you think about the quantity of 35mm equipment out there in 1996, APS never really had a chance of supplanting 35mm. The only way manufacturers could do that would be to discontinue 35mm cameras and withdraw 35mm film, and consequently shoot themselves firmly in the pre-digital foot. APS offers no technical or optical advantages over 35mm unless you're an incompetent who can't load a camera properly. APS = massive fail. But the marketing guys loved it. :-D

Cheers,
kevs

 

[Bill Burk]

Very fair.

I just went out and shot a roll of the Kodak Advantix just to prove myself wrong and realize you're right haha.

I'm planning to crop after so I'm not concerned either the magnetic data, but does anyone have a reel to process this in a JOBO/Patterson at home?

And how can I scan it? My scanner doesn't have APS size holder... Haha

Guess I'm lucky, one of mine does. The Minolta Dimage Scan Multi with APS Adapter AD-100... (I bought it before joining APUG, it sits gathering time)...

Last Saturday I stopped by my local camera store and they had a few APS cartridges on the shelf. Almost grabbed them. I was on a mission though, so I picked up some chems and 35mm 100 TMAX instead...

 

[Bill Burk]

When you think about the quantity of 35mm equipment out there in 1996, APS never really had a chance of supplanting 35mm. The only way manufacturers could do that would be to discontinue 35mm cameras and withdraw 35mm film, and consequently shoot themselves firmly in the pre-digital foot. APS offers no technical or optical advantages over 35mm unless you're an incompetent who can't load a camera properly. APS = massive fail. But the marketing guys loved it. :-D

Cheers,
kevs

The tiny Elph's were pretty darned cool. And they look just like digital P&S cameras. I thought of picking up one just so I could shoot film incognito.

 

[StoneNYC]

Guess I'm lucky, one of mine does. The Minolta Dimage Scan Multi with APS Adapter AD-100... (I bought it before joining APUG, it sits gathering time)...

Last Saturday I stopped by my local camera store and they had a few APS cartridges on the shelf. Almost grabbed them. I was on a mission though, so I picked up some chems and 35mm 100 TMAX instead...

Can I have it? Lol! I'll adapt it for my new epsonv750


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

The tiny Elph's were pretty darned cool. And they look just like digital P&S cameras. I thought of picking up one just so I could shoot film incognito.

I like that idea, I also like the idea shooting with APX film a fine art pice with Profoto lighting equipment, some pocket wizards, and a hot model.

Just to be different.


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MattKing]

I have seen a tremendously clear and detailed 4x5 foot poster printed from a disc negative.

Of course, it was done in Rochester to be used by senior Kodak management as part of a retirement party honouring a Kodak Canada employee who was:

1) known for many years as "Mr. Kodak" throughout the western half of Canada, because he was the only Kodak representative in that half of our country; and
2) forced to retire just a few month's short of his 50th anniversary with the company, due to Kodak Canada's mandatory retirement at age 65 rule (do the math ).

As I understand it, much of the tremendous improvement we saw in films in the last 1/4 of the 20th century occurred because of the work done to make 110, disc and APS film viable.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Matt;

Thank you.

For part of that time, I shared an office with that team. Jim and Lee, the leaders of the film and chemical team still meet for lunch after all of that time. Yes, lots of work was done to improve films.

PE

 

[StoneNYC]

I have seen a tremendously clear and detailed 4x5 foot poster printed from a disc negative.

Of course, it was done in Rochester to be used by senior Kodak management as part of a retirement party honouring a Kodak Canada employee who was:

1) known for many years as "Mr. Kodak" throughout the western half of Canada, because he was the only Kodak representative in that half of our country; and
2) forced to retire just a few month's short of his 50th anniversary with the company, due to Kodak Canada's mandatory retirement at age 65 rule (do the math ).

As I understand it, much of the tremendous improvement we saw in films in the last 1/4 of the 20th century occurred because of the work done to make 110, disc and APS film viable.

He started working at 15/16? Is that the legal age in Canada?


~Stone

The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Burk]

Might've been back then...

 

[MattKing]

Yep, he started just after he turned 15.

His early road trips involved a Ford Model A

 

[cmacd123]

A few points are missed here......

I have made 16x20 and 20x24 prints from 35mm color negatives.

I have had a few poster size prints made from 35mm Negatives, One for a Ricoh Af-5 that My father used. the prints look marvelous. the APS emusion was no doubt just as good.

As for film formats, I do not deny that Kodak introduced a host of film formats.

For years Kodak was in a position to inntroduce new formats where they thought there was an advantage to do so, and I do mean a customer advantage. APS cartriges wre smaller than 35 for a reason, they cameras could be made smaller! A Kinica AA-35 is the thinest cameera that you can do with 35mm, I used one as my Carry Camera for years as it fit my pocket. The APS cartrige would have allowed an even thiner camera. The AA-35 is almost as thin as a Disk camera, but the format and the small negative (Alowing a small lens) were all about making a thin camera.

The change over was of course also a profitable enterprise for Kodak's Photofinisher sales departmnet as it proably sold new equipment, - mind you they often made updates for existing units which would have had a higher engineering cost per unit sold if it was an update for a machine taht was no longer made.

As for producing some of the formats today, this would take a lot of equipment that just does not exist. In addition, at least 126 required an extra step in preparation in which the entire strip of film was flashed to form frames around the sites where the image was to be placed on exposure.

The "Orca 110" B&W has this step, although not in teh same format are the other makers film. Someone building low voulme tooling to make 126 or 110 could proably do this step with a regsiter contact printing frame after the film was perforated. And that can proably be done with the film flat on a set up with multiple punches, the holes do not have to be made with the same sort of spacing precison as for movie film.

but our children loved those cameras and carried them everywhere. They took a lot of photos, and they told us that their friends loved them.

And those kids are now using cell phones and thin compact digitals, I hate to admiot (here especially) that a Nikon Coolpix is now part of the items taht sometimes travel with me, it is Precisly because it is the size of the disk camera, and the shots I take with it are for quick sharing, rather than as long term images.

 

[cmacd123]

Someone building low voulme tooling to make 126 or 110 could proably do this step with a regsiter contact printing frame after the film was perforated. And that can proably be done with the film flat on a set up with multiple punches, the holes do not have to be made with the same sort of spacing precison as for movie film..

Forgot to add, that although I can see where the pre-flashed borders would help large volume photfinishers in keeping the process in control, anyone (HI SIMON, Hi ADOX) who wnated to make a viable 126 or 110 film could omit that step without causing serious issues with either home or commercial processing given the low volume compaired to 35mm going through the machines.

Low volume APS is of course more dificult as it requires the thin film base and the clear magnetic coating on the back to be sure it will work with many existing cameras. Ad lets face it there are many more 126 and 110 cameras out there than there were APS cameras ever made.

 

[StoneNYC]

Forgot to add, that although I can see where the pre-flashed borders would help large volume photfinishers in keeping the process in control, anyone (HI SIMON, Hi ADOX) who wnated to make a viable 126 or 110 film could omit that step without causing serious issues with either home or commercial processing given the low volume compaired to 35mm going through the machines.

Low volume APS is of course more dificult as it requires the thin film base and the clear magnetic coating on the back to be sure it will work with many existing cameras. Ad lets face it there are many more 126 and 110 cameras out there than there were APS cameras ever made.

Yea but canon didn't make any EOS mount 126's... They did an APX, it's really fun, like shooting with a Sony NEX with a 70-200 L series lens, it's ridiculously silly and fun.

I actually haven't seen a 126 in a while.


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ajuk]

I'm confused, aren't there formats more obscure than APS still in production?

I wonder if the guys of Lomo could take up the gauntlet.

 

[benveniste]

I'm confused, aren't there formats more obscure than APS still in production?

I wonder if the guys of Lomo could take up the gauntlet.

Many of the obscure formats can be recreated by cutting, respooling, and otherwise adapting existing film sizes. I also suspect the IX240 cartridge itself is covered by several still active patents, which could prevent boutique players from entering the market for at least 2-3 years.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The information layer, the magnetic stripe and film info, would be missing, and thus the camera would malfunction. The camera would not know how to count frames or rewind the film.

PE

 

[airgunr]

I think I may have one or two rolls left in my freezer. I don't have a APS camera anymore and it's been in there for a fairly long time. You can have it/them if you pay the postage. PM me if interested.

 

[Bill Burk]

pm sent...